Disposed

Mr. Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2025WP/10161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing revenue authorities to conduct a survey and delineate boundaries of his Hyderabad land after his F-Line application was rejected stating 'demarcation of old survey number is not in force'. The court set aside the unreasoned rejection and directed reconsideration with a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection set aside; authorities to re-examine F-Line application No.TTDTR02/250/1/40056 dated 14.02.2025 and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Mr. Om Prakash Modi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1 0161 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

[\ilr. Om Pqqkaglr [r/odi, S/o pravin.Chandra M.lr/odi, Aged 51 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.6-3-344, Road No. 1, Banjara ffitti, fiyOeriOa'd--^-' ---

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, E"p, by its principal Secretary, Revenue

¶12

_^{gepqrtment.Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad,} Hvderab6d. 2. The District Collector, Hyderaba-d District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisionar officer, secunderabad Division, secunderabad. 4. The Assistant Director, survey and Land Records, t-tvoeir"oJo o-iiiiiJ[Hyderabad.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Khairatabad lVlandal, Hyderabad District.

¶15

The [\ilandal surveyor, 0/o. The Tahsirdar, Khairatabad-rvrandar, Hyderabad District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, ordgr or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of lr,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents, in not conducting the survey and delineate the boundaries of the subject property belonging to the petitioner i.e., the rand admeasuring Ac.3-39 guntas, situated in Sy.No.207ll and 20712 (T S.No.4/1 and 412) of Khairthabad viilage, bearing lt/lunicipal No.5-4-200l5 and s-4-203, situated on the circular Ring Road, adjacent to Hussain Sagar Tank, Secunderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of survey and boundaries act and rules there under, as well as violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents to conduct the survey and delineate the boundaries of the subject property forthwith.

¶18

,-v

¶19

tA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct survey and delineate the bounclaries of the 'subject property', belonging to the petitioner i.e., land admeasur ng Ac.3-39 guntas, situated in Sy.No 20711 and 20712 (T.S.No .411 and 412) of Khainhabad village, bearing Municipal No.5-4-20015 and 5-4-203. situated on the circular Ring Road, adjacent to Hussarn Sagar Tank, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHESH MAMINDLA Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

UIRIT PETITION No.1O16 I of2025

¶26

This Writ^petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting the survey and delineate the boundaries of the petitioner,s land admeasuring Acs.3.39 guntas in Sy.Nos.207 /I and 2O7 /2 F.S.No.4/l and. 4/2 of Kairatabad Village) bearing Municipal Door Nos.5 4_2OO/5 and 5-4-2Ol, situated near circular Ring Road, adjacent to Hussain Sagar Tank, Secunderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 arrd consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

¶27

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.3.39 guntas in Sy.Nos.207 /1 and 2O7 /2 (T.S.No.4/1 arrd 4/2 of Kairatabad Village) bearing Municipal Door Nos.5-4-200/5 and 5-4-201, situated near circular Ring Road, adjacent to Hussain Sagar Tank, Secunderabad. it is further stated that for documentation purpose and to ensure accurate boundary delineation and as per the instructions of respondent No.S, the petitioner made F-Line application, d,ated. 14.02.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.S, instead of conducting a survey of the subject property, rejected the said F_

¶28

¶29

CVBR,^J wp_10161 2025

¶30

II-reffiEHI

¶31

".
Ei \ ,!#'t' -'
\n;'' t:.,'];
: \ \ <br>

¶32

Line application stating^{that demarcation of old survey number is} not in force.

¶33

Consirlered the^{submissionsof the learned counselfor the} petitioner and Sri^{L.Ravinder, IearnedAssistantGovernment} Pleader for Revenue^{appearing for respondentNos lto 6 and lvith} their consent, this^{writ petition isbeing disposed of atthe} admission srage.

¶34

4 . Sri L. Ravinder,^{learnedAssistant GovernmentPieade rfor} Revenue, has not disputed^{the submission of F-Lineapplication by} the pctitioner sceking^{for conducting survey of tl':e subjectland} and its reje< tion^{withoutassigningany reasons.}

¶35

This Coult has carefully^{examined the irnpugnedorder} passed by respondent^{No.5 rejecting theF-Lineapplication} submittecl for conducting^{survey of the land admeasuring Acs'3 39} guntas in Sy.Nos.2O7 ll arrd 2O7 12 (T.S.No-4ll^{and 412 ol} Kairatabad Village) bearing^{Municipal Door Nos.5-4-2OOl5and 5-} 4 201, situated near circular^{RingRoad, adjacenttc' Hr'rssain Sagar} Tank, Secunderabad. Except^{statingthat theapplication} submitted by the petitioner^{is rejectedstating that "demarcation of} oid survey number not in force", no valid^{reasons whatsoeverhave} been assigned to enable the petitioner to^{take appropriate action.}

¶36

CVBR, J wp lo161 2025

¶37

¶38

Since the impugned order passed by respondent No.S is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to re_examine the F_Line application No.TTDtrR02 250 i 1 40056, d.ated, | 4.O2.202S submitted by the petitioner and if he fulfils ali the requirements mentioned in the circulars issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, uide Rc. No.N 1/6543/99, dated 25.OZ.2OOl, Rc.No.N1/ I4O8/OT, dated 73.02.2OO7, and Rc.No.N2/ 174 I /2OtO, dated 18.O5.2O1O, consider the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of eight (Og) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

6 With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

7 . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶41

shail stand closed.

¶42

SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

FFICER

1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sec riat Buildings, Qaifqbad,^{Hyderabad, Stateof Telangana.}

¶48

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶49

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 4 T,he Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad Distric! Hyderabad.

¶50

5 The Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶51

6 The Mandal Surveyor, O/o. The Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶52

7 One CC to SRI I,4AHESH M|MLNDLA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

8 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court forthe Statb of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

I Two CD Copies

¶55

PSK- -.- --f . .,^- -.,-"..tr4..!l'. .^. --

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412025

ORDER

WP.No.10161 of²⁰²⁵

.-" ::- ---
,.
i
: [3 DII rr125
II

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

Mr. Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasala Laxmamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Gongalla Sai Rudra, Vs the State of Telangana

Golla Balappa Vs The State of Telangana

Yanugu Veeranjaneya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sara Krishna Goud Vs State of Telangana

Smt. N. Lakshmi Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana